Skip to main content
Glama
sgup
by sgup

check_usage

Monitor API usage and limits to track monthly quota, usage count, and remaining requests for icon retrieval operations.

Instructions

Check current API usage and limits. Returns monthly quota information including usage count and remaining requests.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool execution handler for 'check_usage'. Dispatches to api.checkUsage() and returns the result as formatted JSON text content.
    case 'check_usage': {
      const result = await api.checkUsage();
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition for 'check_usage', including name, description, and empty input schema (no parameters required).
      name: 'check_usage',
      description:
        'Check current API usage and limits. Returns monthly quota information including usage count and remaining requests.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:42-46 (registration)
    Registers the handler for listing available tools via MCP's ListToolsRequestSchema, exposing the 'check_usage' tool schema from TOOLS array.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => {
      return {
        tools: TOOLS,
      };
    });
  • Helper method in NounProjectAPI class that performs the actual API call to check usage limits and returns the response data.
    async checkUsage() {
      const url = `${BASE_URL}/v2/client/usage`;
      const headers = this.oauth.getHeaders(url);
    
      const response = await this.client.get('/v2/client/usage', {
        headers,
      });
    
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Check', 'Returns') and specifies the type of information returned ('monthly quota information including usage count and remaining requests'). However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this counts against rate limits itself, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds some value but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second specifies the return information. No wasted words, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a basic read operation. It explains what information is returned, which compensates for the lack of output schema. However, for a usage/limits tool, it could benefit from mentioning typical use cases (monitoring, planning requests) or behavioral constraints. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is valuable context. This earns a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools that don't mislead about parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check current API usage and limits' specifies the verb ('Check') and resource ('API usage and limits'), and 'Returns monthly quota information...' adds detail about what information is provided. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling tools (none listed are usage/limit tools), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, frequency of use, or contextual triggers. While there are no obvious sibling alternatives for usage checking, the description lacks any usage context beyond the basic purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sgup/noun-project-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server